SB Nation User Blog: furious.d

Ryan Hollins Signs Offer w/ T-Wolves

furious.d — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 19:39:46 -0000

Ryan Hollins Signs Offer w/ T-Wolves

3 years, $7 millions. Any takers?

The Case for Lamar Odom?

furious.d — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:52:06 -0000

Preposterous, I know. But, upon close inspection (by my standards), It actually seems like a pretty darn good idea for the Kings to make a run at signing free agent Lamar Odom. Here's the case against him: He'll turn 30 at the beginning of the season, he may or may not have a pathological addiction to candy, he has been accused of disappearing at times, the Kings aren't good enough yet to take a risk on a crowning piece like Odom. What follows is the argument in favor of his signing with the Kings.

As is the case with any NBA deal, money is the primary issue. Specifically, how much would it take to get him and is he worth that amount? Reportedly, he was offered a 3 year contract worth $27M by the Lakers, which has since been pulled off the table. That same report says that Miami has also offered a 5 year, $35M contract. So, it seems safe to assume that he'll cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $7-9M, depending on how many years the winning bidder is willing to guarantee.

Obviously, the Kings don't have the benefit of being a title contender, a major market, or a tax haven on their side. However, we do have the rare advantage of cap space. This means that we are one of the few teams that can sign Odom for more than the MLE without possessing his Bird Rights. But the Lakers do have his Bird Rights, so they can match any offer we make. Why would he choose us over them? I'm sure he wouldn't, but it isn't a given that the Lakers would match. According to Shamsports, the Lakers are already approximately $7M over the luxury tax without Ron Artest's salary (which should be about $7M per). That means that every dollar that we're willing to guarantee over the Lakers' offer, they have to pay two dollars to match. Add to that the fact that he's not a starter for them and they've already taken 3yrs/$27M off the table and it seems very unlikely that they'd be willing to match - say - 4yrs/$33M. Yes, that's a year less than MIA's offer, but it's also nearly the same amount of guaranteed cash. Odom now has a ring, and he didn't really seem like the kind of player that would take a pay cut to play on a great team in the first place. I say, he follows the money and we've got it.

Here comes the hard part: Is he worth it? Some will say no, he's too old. But we know that even exceedingly talented young teams need veterans to become contenders. We salivate at Portland's promising young core, while they throw money at aging second-tier stars like Pacman Jones at the Minxx Gentlemen's Club & Lounge. A lot would have to go right for us to be in the position that the Blazers are in now, and their coach and front office agree that they desperately need quality vets to become legitimate contenders. Hedo is 8 months older than Odom and just got 5yrs/$53M from Toronto. His stock is high, but I don't think he's a better player than Odom. He scores more points, but does so less efficiently. He has good size and ballhandling for his position, but so does Lamar. He also plays no defense and isn't a good rebounder, which is what makes Odom special. Artest - who is six days younger than Odom - just got 5yrs/$35M, but I'm sure I don't have to explain what makes him a uniquely risky commitment. So the price is right.

Does he fit the team? He plays a position where we have an apparent logjam, but it's also the position of most need. Best case scenario, Donte or Casspi will become a SF like Odom, but neither of those two is at all proven and Odom already is Odom. He can also give us a much different look at PF than JT, Brockman, or May, which makes us more versatile. I understand that this rebuild has been too painful to throw away what small progress we've made on a short-term solution. Still, we've got to start winning games sooner rather than later, given our woeful attendance and Sacramento's tenuous grasp on the franchise. I'm suggesting we sign Odom through the 2012-13 season, by which time Martin will be 30 and his contract will expire. Shock, Hawes, and Evans will be 26, 25, and 23, respectively. If we're not contenders by that point, then this phase of the rebuild will have been a failure regardless of whether we signed Odom. So Odom isn't too old for this team unless one believes that his production will fall off quickly as he passes 30. Obviously LA and Miami (his two most recent employers) don't expect that to happen, given that they have both offered him long-term deals. I'm sure that you can think of plenty of players that are still highly effective in the first half of their thirties, including 9 of last year's 26 All-Stars. I haven't seen much diminishment of Odom's considerable athleticism. He'd have to really fall off of a cliff in the next few years to not be worth $8.25M per season, in my opinion.

So there you have it: the case for Lamar Odom. It's almost certainly moot, since Petrie flat-out stated that the Kings wouldn't be major players in the market for free agents (please hold your Sean May jokes). But I think Geoff would be wise to reconsider that position in this case. Thanks for reading.

Brandon Jennings' Roma Teammate on Jennings vs. Rubio

furious.d — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:37:12 -0000

Brandon Jennings' Roma Teammate on Jennings vs. Rubio

Superficial analysis, but interesting nonetheless.

Christmas Tree The Psych Test?: Sometimes you hear a story that just too silly to believe, but...

furious.d — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:22:33 -0000

Christmas Tree The Psych Test?: Sometimes you hear a story that just too silly to believe, but three league sources have repeated this scenario so it has to be stated – why is Brandon Jennings taking a tumble? Brandon has absolutely killed it in workouts. Two team sources who he worked out for said the kid is an amazing talent. The problem is he's got some red flags, and the biggest appears to be that he "Christmas Tree'd" the psychological test. Most teams administer a test to determine if they are drafting a kid with significant problems, or kids that have competitive issues in order to determine if they can handle the rigors of professional life in the NBA. Most teams put a lot of weight behind the psych testing; some put a little, some don't consider it at all. It turns out Jennings may have answered all the questions the same, as one executive said "blowing off the test", and as you can imagine teams that value that information were not overly pleased. Two teams in the top 6 immediately removed Brandon from consideration upon hearing that news and word is unless Minnesota takes him at #6, he could take a wicked tumble on draft day.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?STORY_ID=13012

Locked Out: Paul Westphal in the Emerald City

furious.d — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:59:06 -0000

Though the tide of opinion has turned somewhat as Paul Westphal's hiring became a reality over the course of the last couple days, it seems to me that there's still a lingering displeasure with the choice floating around this community. The first rumors of Westphal's candidacy inspired little excitement from SactownRoyalty, due in large part to votes of no confidence by ClipperSteve and Kevin Pelton whose basketball opinions TZ (apparently) trusts. Since most of us trust TZ's opinions on the Kings, some mathematical property with a name that I forgot in seventh grade applied and we branded Westphal a "retread" (an ironic accusation, since one of the few qualifications that Petrie called for was head-coaching experience). But the lures of Westphal's conference-winning rookie season as head coach of Phoenix, stellar overall winning percentage in the NBA, and distinguished playing career were too appealing for me to ignore.

In my opinion, his record in Phoenix speaks for itself. Say what you will about the amount of talent that he inherited from the architects of that team; I think we can all name plenty of immensely talented teams that never took the Bulls to six games in the Finals. Westphal's Suns won at least one playoff series in all three of his full seasons, and lost to the eventual NBA Champion each time. Maybe he was just staying out of the way, but he was staying out of the way of Charles Barkley (and winning 59 games per season in the process). That's impressive for a rookie coach. As for his poor record with Pepperdine, I simply don't care. Neither his lack of success at Pepperdine, nor his fantastic achievements at Grand Canyon College mean anything to me. It's not the same job - ask John Calipari.

So that brings us to Seattle, Westphal's most recent stop as an NBA head coach. What happened? In short: he took over a very good team, had some okay seasons, and got fired. But what else happened? Knowing little about those teams, I went to the online archives of the Seattle Times and learned some interesting things that changed my perception of this period of his career. (Spoiler: I give him the benefit of the doubt.) So if you've got the time - and, let's be honest, you do if you've gotten this far - follow me as trace the erratic course of Paul Westphal's tenure in Seattle, as reported by the Seattle Times.

To start things off, here's a fluff piece introducing the origins of Westphal's philosophies from the night before his first game in Seattle. It contains quotes praising him from John Wooden, Red Auerbach, and Kevin Johnson, among others. Most telling is this brief quote by Wooden: "Of all the players that I recruited and lost, he's the one I wanted more than any other." Though the piece is fundamentally superficial, it is clear how much respect Westphal seems to generate from players and coaches alike. It's also clear how high expectations were in Seattle at the time.

This article written before Westphal's hiring describes an interview that took place between Westphal, then-Sonics-GM Wally Walker, and Gary Payton in Oakland (Payton's hometown). Without reading the article it's clear that Payton had an incredible amount of control over franchise operations. If the Cleveland fired Mike Brown tomorrow, would the Cavaliers openly allow LeBron James to conduct a personal interview in his backyard? It's hard to believe. The article goes on to mention that Payton's top choices did not include Westphal and that his friendship with (probable racist and confirmed jackass) Rush Limbaugh was a sticking point. It's clear that Payton had not only a strong bias against Westphal before they had even met, but also the clout within the organization to successfully undermine him. And undermine him, Payton did. But we'll get to that.

Another issue confronting Westphal before he got to do any actual coaching for the Sonics was the labor lockout that began 7/1/98, two weeks after Westphal was hired, and stretched 32 games into the '98-'99 regular season. The lockout not only prevented games from being played, it prohibited any contact between players and franchise representatives. As this article points out, that meant that he couldn't even meet his new players, let alone coach them. And how much gameplanning could he do with only six players under contract? The lockout ended on 1/20/99. Less than three weeks later, the Sonics played their first game of the season, having been forced to sign their rookies, fill out the roster, meet one another, get back into playing condition, and teach what gameplanning was possible in the brief interim after having taken eight months off. Astonishingly, the Sonics were able to rattle off six straight wins before losing their first game of the season to your Sacramento Kings in overtime. They missed the playoffs for the first time in a decade, despite having an identical record to the 8th-seeded Timberwolves.

But all was not right in the Emerald City. Vin Baker - for whom the Sonics had traded Shawn Kemp, one of the keys to the team's emergence in the Western Conference - was severely out of shape after the lockout-lengthened offseason. He was overweight, slow, and lackadaisical, a condition recognized by himself, his teammates, and his coach here. His averages went down from 19/8 to 14/6, his FG% shrunk by 9% and 14%. Baker's lack of productivity and focus (he missed 18 free throws in a row at one point in the season) became one of Seattle's primary setbacks in '98-'99. Despite coming off the worst year of his career to that point, Seattle GM Wally Walker signed Baker to a 7-year $87M contract that summer, thus wedding Westphal's coaching fate to Baker and Payton, who had received his $87M contract before Westphal had arrived and was Baker's best friend on the team.

(Sidenote: Kevin Pelton's analysis of Westphal's failure in Seattle made a certain amount of ado about his starting Billy Owens over Hersey Hawkins and Detlef Schrempf. The truth is that Billy Owens started just 19 of 50 games that season, and 6 of those starts were with Schrempf and Hawkins also starting. On the other hand, Schrempf and Hawkins started 39 and 34 games that season, respectively. They were second and third to Gary Payton in minutes played and also the only players aside from Payton to appear in every game, despite being 36 (Schrempf) and 32 (Hawkins). Statistically they both played almost exactly as well as they had the previous season ('97-'98). Both were gone from the team at the end of the season, both would retire after fewer than more two full seasons, and neither ever scored more than 8ppg in what was left of their careers. If Westphal hastened the end of the Schrempf/Hawkins era, it should be regarded as a good thing, particularly considering that it cleared the way for the emergence of Rashard Lewis. Age, not Paul Westphal, was to blame for the end of their run as core pieces of a contender.)

Despite losing half of their Payton/Baker/Schrempf/Hawkins core, the Sonics went 45-37 and made the playoffs in the '99-'00 season. In fact, they did it with Payton, Baker, their three '99-'00 rookies (Lewis, Jelani McCoy, and Vladimir Stepania), and nine new players. Horace Grant, Brent Barry, Ruben Patterson, and Vernon Maxwell were the top players of this new crowd. Payton had the best year of his career statistically and Vin Baker lost about half of the extra 20 lbs. he had carried in the previous season, and regained about half of the discrepancy in production from the '97-'98 season that it had caused, registering 16.6/7.7 for the season and improving his FT% by about 23%. Unfortunately despite his improved physical conditioning, Baker's performance was erratic, as he was locked in a battle with alcoholism and depression that he had little success controlling. The '99-'00 Sonics lost their opening-round playoff series 3-2 to the Stockton/Malone Jazz after an improved, but inconsistent season with a brand-new team. In the final month of the regular season, Rashard Lewis entered the starting lineup and averaged 14/6 after having averaged just 4/3 in November. His numbers were up across the board, and he had earned the trust of his coach.

The '00-'01 season started poorly. The Sonics acquired Patrick Ewing during the previous offseason, but his production (9.6/7.4) didn't quite match his pricetag ($14M). He was a shell of his former self, and the experiment was doomed from the get-go. Nevertheless, he hobbled through 79 starts that season. Gary Payton quickly became frustrated (as he is wont to do) and began screaming at Westphal on the sideline during an 11/21/00 game in Dallas. Payton received a one-game suspension from the Sonics, but Westphal asked President and GM Wally Walker to lift the ban after a meeting in which Payton showed remorse for his actions, as described here. Six days after Payton's outburst in Dallas two days after being embarrassed by your Sacramento Kings in ARCO, Westphal was fired and Nate "Mr. Sonic" McMillan was promoted to head coach. The team was 6-9 at the time. Officially Westphal was given the boot for the team's lack of discipline, but as excellently summed up here, it was really a case of the team's superstar, Gary Payton, having the ultimate leverage of an $87M guaranteed contract over the dispensable head coach. Westphal himself attributed his firing more to Baker's rocky stretch during his run as head coach. The team finished 44-38. In McMillan's first full season as head coach in Seattle, the Sonics went 45-37 - the exact same record they had achieved in Westphal's first full season. They also lost in the first round of the playoffs.

So how can we characterize the tenure of Paul Westphal in Seattle? Well we certainly can't deny that he took over a winning team. But we also know that it was a very unstable team. Its cornerstone was an arrogant, self-centered point guard with a giant contract to match his giant ego and giant talent. Its strongest pillar was deteriorating from the inside out: emotionally disturbed and alcoholic, Vin Baker's all-star talent was consumed by his bloated body and even-more bloated contract. Nevertheless, Paul Westphal never gave up on his two best players, as noted here and proven by the story of Westphal personally asking for Payton's suspension to be lifted just a day after being publicly verbally abused by his player. The other remnants of Seattle's former glory, Detlef Schrempf and Hersey Hawkins, simply didn't have enough basketball left in them to evolve with the team. Having inherited this house of cards, and with the added obstacle of having virtually no time to prepare the team for his lockout-shortened initial season with the franchise, Westphal was able to guide nine new players, three rookies, a head case, and an even bigger headcase (I'll let you decide which is which) to the playoffs. Somewhere, Westphal found the time to nurture the confidence of the talented, but unpolished Rashard Lewis. Despite his adroit maneuvering around the tremendous obstacles that came with the job, Westphal never had a chance. He had been locked out: by the Players' Union, by Gary Payton's ego, by Vin Baker's demons, and by Seattle's unrealistic expectations.

This franchise may be down on its luck, but if there's one thing we haven't lost it's the capacity to get behind another underdog. Paul Westphal's been locked out by this league a couple of times, let's make him feel at home.

P.S. - As these things generally are, this was written very late at night. Please excuse the utter lack of editing and proofreading.

WTF, OKC?

furious.d — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:28:29 -0000

WTF, OKC?

Is anyone else confused by this? All you need is cash and a pick in the mid-twenties to get Amir Johnson and the 15th pick? Is this deal open to anyone, or is it some sort of void where prohibited thing? I'd way rather have Amir Johnson for this price than Ike Diogu. Somebody hold me.

Worst-Case Scenario

furious.d — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:57:08 -0000

Since we're all Kings fans, we're all probably used to hoping for the best and expecting the worst. (Pervis Ellison, Bobby Hurley, Game 6 - I'm sure I don't have to remind you). So what happens if we end up with the #3 or #4 pick? Well some of us are impressed by Thabeeeeeeet! and some are excited about the potential of Tyreke Evans, and some even want to trade down if we can't get 1 or 1a. But what about trading up?

There are a few teams with a good chance of sneaking ahead of us that seem to need Rubio just as bad as we do (Clippers, T-Wolves). But there are some other teams with good lottery odds that have much bigger holes than PG. For instance, if the Wiz were to win the #1 pick, they'd probably pick Griffin. If the Thunder then were to get the #2 pick and the Kings the #3, I think we'd be in a pretty good position to switch spots. The Thunder already have a talented, 20 year-old PG to develop; they'd have much more use for a dominant pivot who can run the floor and anchor their defense (Thabeet).

So the questions are these: If the Kings don't get a top-2 pick and Rubio's still available at #2, should they try to trade up? What would you be willing to give up in order to get this done? Do you think teams would demand too much? Would the options be financially feasible?

Kings One-Liners

furious.d — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 05:11:05 -0000

In honor of what Peaches unilaterally (though probably fairly) decreed the worst loss of the season tonight, I'd like to invite the StR community to take a moment to ring off its best Kings one-liners. Remember - while inappropriateness isn't required, it will get you bonus points in the lightning round. Personally I'm going to follow the classic [blank] the Kings is like [blank], [blank] format, but feel free to develop your own style.

For example, I'll start:

Playing for the Kings is like being a horny teenager; you're constantly beating yourself but you rarely break a sweat doing so.

Or, for the PG-13 set:

Being a Kings fan is like fighting with the Order of the Phoenix in the Battle for Hogwarts; your only hope is a scrawny teenager with a dopey haircut.

Go ahead, let's see what you've saved up over the course of 63 losses.

Waiting 'til next year, this year

furious.d — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:27:31 -0000

There are a variety of reasons that this may be a stupid question. Maybe it's been discussed here, maybe its premise is ridiculous. I don't know. So as I have in so many times of desperate confusion, I turn to the internet for answers:

I have no idea if JVG is interested in coaching in the NBA in 2009 (let alone in Sacramento). Logically, it makes sense to me - he's still relatively young, and coaches usually can't stay away. But I'm completely unaware of his personal circumstances.

So why do I bring him up? Well, like others around here I believe that Sacramento's next head coach needs to have an established track record as a success at this level. We have too many "project" players to also have a "project" coach.

Eddie Jordan (who has been advocated for on StR and elsewhere) has the credentials, the Kings connection, and the x-and-o ability to improve any team's offense. I think he's a great candidate.

Still, I wonder if Van Gundy wouldn't be an equally-good or better candidate, and why he hasn't been discussed more on StR. His reputation suggests that he could help give the Kings something that fans have pined for in Sacramento for years: defensive toughness. And his record (career 57.5 and 50 win percentages in the regular season and postseason, respectively) suggests that whatever he does works.

I understand the argument that a coach should play to his personnel's strengths, and teams put together by Petrie tend to be offensive minded. But I also think this group has parallels to teams that Van Gundy has suceeded with in the past (i.e. skilled bigs, scrappy wings, and a pure-scoring guard. The idea of a bunch of offensively-skilled young players versed in Coachie's system, who have Van Gundy's style of hardnosed defense drilled into them excites me.

But when all is said and done, I admit to knowing little about Van Gundy or Jordan specifically and NBA coaching generally, which is why I came to you in the first place. So chew it over while you watch the #1 seeds trounce the #16's and get back to me.

Poll

What available coach would you most like to see on the Kings bench come Opening Day 2009?

Eddie Jordan

52 votes

Jeff Van Gundy

33 votes

Kenny Natt [*snicker]

5 votes

The Field

22 votes

112 votes | Poll has closed

I think Thompson is going to be one of the most improved players from this class at this time next...

furious.d — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:28:41 -0000

I think Thompson is going to be one of the most improved players from this class at this time next year.

More Thorpe Love for Shock